An essay from the Progress & Freedom Foundation (www.PFF.org) about proposals to tax media devices or distribution systems to fund media content. The authors, Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, argue that such media income redistribution is fundamentally inconsistent with American press traditions, highly problematic under the First Amendment, difficult to implement in a world of media abundance and platform convergence, and likely to cause serious negative side effects.

An essay from the Progress & Freedom Foundation (www.PFF.org) about proposals to tax media devices or distribution systems to fund media content. The authors, Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, argue that such media income redistribution is fundamentally inconsistent with American press traditions, highly problematic under the First Amendment, difficult to implement in a world of media abundance and platform convergence, and likely to cause serious negative side effects.

With many traditional media operators struggling, and questions being raised about how journalism in particular will be supported in the future,

1

Washington policymakers are currentlyconsidering what role government can and should play in helping media providers reinventthemselves in the face of tumultuous technological change wrought by the Digital Revolution.For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently kicked off a new

”proceeding, we will discuss and critique some of the leading proposals being put

forward that would have the government play a greater role in sustaining struggling mediaenterprises,

“saving journalism

,

”

or promoting more “public interest” content.

In this essay, we discuss an old idea that

‘s gained

new currency: taxing media

devices

or

distribution

systems to fund media

content.

We argue that such media income redistribution isfundamentally inconsistent with American press traditions, highly problematic under the FirstAmendment, difficult to implement in a world of media abundance and platform convergence,and likely to cause serious negative side effects.

Adam Thierer is President of The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Berin Szoka is a Senior Fellow and Directorof

PFF’s

Center for Internet Freedom. The views expressed in this report are their own, and are notnecessarily the views of the PFF board, other fellows or staff.

1

The Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism

reports that: “

The numbers for 2009 reveal just how urgent thesequestions are becoming. Newspapers, including online, saw ad revenue fall 26% during the year, which bringsthe total loss over the last three years to 43%. Local television ad revenue fell 22% in 2009, triple the declinethe year before. Radio also was off 22%. Magazine ad revenue dropped 17%, network TV 8% (and news aloneprobably more). Online ad revenue over all fell about 5%, and revenue to news sites most likely also faredmuch worse. Only cable news among the commercial news sectors did not suffer declining revenue last year.

was raised to £142.50/year (currently$213.43) as of April 2009. Failure to pay the fee is, of course, a crime and punished with stiff fines up to £1000 ($1497.75)

—

and radio emissions from unlicensed televisions can be detectedby government vans that

rove Britain’s streets looking

for violators. The revenue generated bythe tax is then allocated amongvarious BBC media products,with most of it going to the BBC 1and BBC 2 television channels.The U.S. has taken a different approach. We

’

ve not embedded a tax in the cost of new mediadevices to pay for the content delivered over those devices. (Of course, that

’

s at least partiallybecause we

’

ve had a strong tradition of free markets in media ever since we revolted againstthe Brits and mercantilism, their system of state-directed economic planning!) Generallyspeaking, private media operators have been expected to pay their own way in this country andnot look to government for direct support.America has had some indirect subsidies in the form of reduced postal rates for print media, aswell as tax treatment for advertising. And taxpayer dollars have been channeled to theCPB/PBS/NPR regime, of course. But such public subsidy is small potatoes when compared toprivate media in the U.S.

but subscriptions, direct sales, andprivate patronage have also been major economic engines of media in United States.But the idea of more direct government support for media (and journalism, in particular) hasalways been lurking out there. There

’

s long been a small but vociferous crowd of academicsand policymakers advocating huge increases in government spending on non-commercial orpublic media. And some of them have even toyed with a tax on technology to cross-subsidizethe media content that flows over those devices or networks. Most recently, Robert W.McChesney and John Nichols, authors of the new book

, have proposed a 4-part tax plan to raise money ($18-21 billion) for a massive $35billion/year

“

public works

”

program for the press (with the remainder coming from othersources):

5

a

5% tax on consumer electronics

(they estimate it would bring in $4 billion/year)a

3% tax on monthly ISP & cell phone bills

(estimated $6 billion/year)a

2% sales tax on advertising

(estimated $5 to $6 billion/year)a

7% tax on broadcasters

(estimated $3-6 billion/year)Similarly, Leonard Downie, Jr., Vice President at Large of

The Washington Post

, and MichaelSchudson, a Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, have

advocated the creation of a “Fund for Local News” that “would make grants for advances in

local news reporting and innovative ways to

support it.”

6

The Fund would make grants to newsorganizations through

“Local News Fund Councils”

and would be

financed by “fees paid by radio

and television licensees, or proceeds from auctions of telecommunications spectrum, or newfees imposed on Inter

net service providers.”

7

(Note: Proposals to impose fees on radio andtelevision licensees will be discussed in a subsequent installment of this PFF series. But forpurposes of this installment, we reference the Downie & Schudson plan because of its call forfees on ISPs as one method of financing media going forward.)

More Platforms, More Taxes

McChesney and Nichols don

’

t go into a lot of detail about their tax proposals, but the consumerelectronics tax they favor appears to be based on the 1967Carnegie Commission Report,whichcalled for a 5% tax on all new television purchases

—a variant on Britain’

s annual licensing fee.But instead of just taxing

“

televisions

”—

which would be very difficult in a world of technological convergence where consumers can

“

watch television

”

on any number of devices(PCs, mobile phones, portable gaming devices, portable media players,

etc

.)

—

they apparentlywant to tax

all

consumer electronic devices. Thus, they seem to recognize the reality of convergence but their answer is to just tax

everything

!The British themselves have struggled with technological change: In 1971, the radio fee firstintroduced in 1922 was abolished, and in 1972, so was the

BBC’s

radio monopoly, withcommercial radio stations being allowed to compete with BBC Radio for the first time. Onemight argue that abolishing the radio tax and relying on a single tax (on televisions) to fund the

BBC’s television programming (67% of BB

C spending) as well as BBC radio (17%) was simplymore efficient

—

since most consumers had a television as well as a radio. Indeed, actuallyimplementing any media device tax in the U.S. could prove very difficult, since countering